Via Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233221/Dennys-charge-5-Obamacare-surcharge-cut-employee-hours-deal-cost-legislation.html):
President Obama’s election victory ensured his Affordable Care Act would remain the centerpiece of his first term in power – but that has left some business owners baulking at the extra cost Obamcare will bring.

Florida based restaurant boss John Metz, who runs approximately 40 Denny’s and owns the Hurricane Grill & Wings franchise has decided to offset that by adding a five percent surcharge to customers’ bills and will reduce his employees’ hours.

With Obamacare due to be fully implemented in January 2014, Metz has justified his move by claiming it is ‘the only alternative. I’ve got to pass on the cost to the customer.’
The fast-food business owner is set to hold meetings at his restaurants in December where he will tell employees, ‘that because of Obamacare, we are going to be cutting front-of-the-house employees to under 30 hours, effective immediately.’

-------------

And it begins. I'm sure this will be only the first of a long line of companies passing the cost on to the customers. Inflation will be obscene to say the least. Not to mention the pain as more and more companies cut worker hours to avoid the law.

The unintended consequences of good intentions.

Rockntractor

11-15-2012, 12:34 PM

The unintended consequences of good intentions.

This was intended all along, the plan is to push everyone to Government healthcare.

Adam Wood

11-15-2012, 01:14 PM

I'll be waiting for the boycott demands from the Left. I'll be more eagerly awaiting the boycott demands on Stryker Medical Equipment (http://www.mmm-online.com/stryker-layoffs-blamed-on-obamacare-tax/article/247605/). Somehow, I suspect that's never coming.

Adam Wood

11-15-2012, 01:16 PM

This was intended all along, the plan is to push everyone to Government healthcare.Yep.

Janice

11-15-2012, 01:20 PM

Naturally you wouldnt expect to see this story covered by U.S. Pravda. Gotta love the American knee pad media, doncha ya?

noonwitch

11-15-2012, 01:39 PM

I haven't been to a Denny's in years. There was a boycott in the 90s, by black people, because of some racial incidents at some of their restaurants. Most of them around metro Detroit have closed, probably due to that boycott. There are still Denny's restaurants in the exurbs, Grand Rapids, and along I-94 west.

I prefer Big Boy's all you can eat breakfast buffet, personally.

Novaheart

11-15-2012, 01:47 PM

Via Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233221/Dennys-charge-5-Obamacare-surcharge-cut-employee-hours-deal-cost-legislation.html):
President Obama’s election victory ensured his Affordable Care Act would remain the centerpiece of his first term in power – but that has left some business owners baulking at the extra cost Obamcare will bring.

Florida based restaurant boss John Metz, who runs approximately 40 Denny’s and owns the Hurricane Grill & Wings franchise has decided to offset that by adding a five percent surcharge to customers’ bills and will reduce his employees’ hours.

With Obamacare due to be fully implemented in January 2014, Metz has justified his move by claiming it is ‘the only alternative. I’ve got to pass on the cost to the customer.’
The fast-food business owner is set to hold meetings at his restaurants in December where he will tell employees, ‘that because of Obamacare, we are going to be cutting front-of-the-house employees to under 30 hours, effective immediately.’

-------------

And it begins. I'm sure this will be only the first of a long line of companies passing the cost on to the customers. Inflation will be obscene to say the least. Not to mention the pain as more and more companies cut worker hours to avoid the law.

The unintended consequences of good intentions.

He should have had a health care plan for his employees in the first place, and his prices would include that.

What kind of a person would cheer on this man? What kind of a person thinks it's really neat that he can pay 25 cents less for his lunch at the expense of the people who serve him?

It's becoming increasingly clear what the health care debate is about: petty people who don't give a shit if other people have health care as long as they have theirs.

This country isn't saving a nickel by shopping at Walmart. Between food stamps, section 8, and Medicaid their employees are amongst the largest collectors of welfare benefits.

Wal-Mart's poverty wages force employees to rely on $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store. In state after state, Wal-Mart employees are the top recipients of Medicaid. As many as 80 percent of workers in Wal-Mart stores use food stamps.

Apocalypse

11-15-2012, 02:01 PM

He should have had a health care plan for his employees in the first place, and his prices would include that.

What kind of a person would cheer on this man? What kind of a person thinks it's really neat that he can pay 25 cents less for his lunch at the expense of the people who serve him?

It's becoming increasingly clear what the health care debate is about: petty people who don't give a shit if other people have health care as long as they have theirs.

This country isn't saving a nickel by shopping at Walmart. Between food stamps, section 8, and Medicaid their employees are amongst the largest collectors of welfare benefits.

Wal-Mart's poverty wages force employees to rely on $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store. In state after state, Wal-Mart employees are the top recipients of Medicaid. As many as 80 percent of workers in Wal-Mart stores use food stamps.
Denny's does have one. Least had one till this bill came along.

Participating In Denny’s Benefits

Who Is Eligible

The benefits described in this SPD are provided
for you — the eligible employees of Denny’s —
and for your eligible dependents.

You

You are eligible to participate in Denny’s benefits
if you are:

􀂃 A regular, full-time salaried employee, and
􀂃 Scheduled to work at least 30 hours per week

They are cutting hours below 30 a week, that means every one is losing this now thanks to obamacare.

It's becoming increasingly clear what the health care debate is about: petty people who don't give a shit if other people have health care as long as they have theirs.

What about me? I don't have health insurance, and I don't give a shit if other people have it either.

Rockntractor

11-15-2012, 02:36 PM

What about me? I don't have health insurance, and I don't give a shit if other people have it either.

Now you and i will be forced to either buy a plan or pay a fine, I have money for neither it is pay for healthcare insurance, pay their fine or pay my bills, I have to pay my bills.

I was doing fine paying doctor visits out of pocket and making payments on emergency room bills. They will make me a criminal yet for minding my own business and paying my own bills and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it, they have painted me into a corner.

Novaheart

11-15-2012, 02:43 PM

Denny's does have one.

Having a plan and having a plan that employees can use and afford is not the same thing.
Denny's offers three plans according to your info:

• A real Aetna Choice plan that looks like real health insurance PPO

• A catastrophic plan

• A so-called "mini-plan" with $25,000 coverage max (like McDonald's and Walmart use to claim higher percentages of insured)

Metz claims that ACA will cost him an additional $5000 per year per employee, or $175,000 per store per year, so clearly 35 of the employees in a given store do not have health insurance.

Novaheart

11-15-2012, 02:47 PM

What about me? I don't have health insurance, and I don't give a shit if other people have it either.

Right. So when you wake up one morning and have to go to the ER with some dreadful malfunction, the hospital will end up taking all of your stuff and then the taxpayers will pick up the difference.

Novaheart

11-15-2012, 02:50 PM

Now you and i will be forced to either buy a plan or pay a fine, I have money for neither it is pay for healthcare insurance, pay their fine or pay my bills, I have to pay my bills.

I was doing fine paying doctor visits out of pocket and making payments on emergency room bills. They will make me a criminal yet for minding my own business and paying my own bills and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it, they have painted me into a corner.

Would you have preferred that the ER turn you away? If you seriously think that you mind your own business and that universal healthcare infringes on your liberty, then support the right of the hospital to demand payment or insurance before allowing the amberlamps to drop you off.

Do you really want a hospital to turn your family member away? Would not not kick and scream about all the taxes you have paid and never drawn a nickel of welfare?

Seriously, the time has come. The way we have been doing this is wrong. It's always been wrong.

Apocalypse

11-15-2012, 02:50 PM

Having a plan and having a plan that employees can use and afford is not the same thing.
Denny's offers three plans according to your info:

• A real Aetna Choice plan that looks like real health insurance PPO

• A catastrophic plan

• A so-called "mini-plan" with $25,000 coverage max (like McDonald's and Walmart use to claim higher percentages of insured)

Metz claims that ACA will cost him an additional $5000 per year per employee, or $175,000 per store per year, so clearly 35 of the employees in a given store do not have health insurance.
Nova, Obamacare states a minimum coverage plan level, and if you don't meet it, you are fined. The "mini-plan" like McDonald's does not meet that level, that is why the HHS gave them a waver last year. They too will be paying the 5,000 year fine. So clearly 35 out of the 35 employees can have some level of coverage as is, but not to the level obamacare dictates.

learn some thing please.

Novaheart

11-15-2012, 02:54 PM

Nova, Obamacare states a minimum coverage plan level, and if you don't meet it, you are fined. The "mini-plan" like McDonald's does not meet that level, that is why the HHS gave them a waver last year. They too will be paying the 5,000 year fine. So clearly 35 out of the 35 employees can have some level of coverage as is, but not to the level obamacare dictates.

learn some thing please.

There is nothing to learn there. The "mini-plan" is not comprehensive health insurance and doesn't facilitate preventative care. It pays for a broken wrist, maybe.

The goal here is not "some coverage". If that were the case, then Denny's could simply have an in house policy of paying up to $1000 for each employee and call themselves 100% insured. It's not acceptable.

NJCardFan

11-15-2012, 02:57 PM

This country isn't saving a nickel by shopping at Walmart. Between food stamps, section 8, and Medicaid their employees are amongst the largest collectors of welfare benefits.

Wal-Mart's poverty wages force employees to rely on $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store. In state after state, Wal-Mart employees are the top recipients of Medicaid. As many as 80 percent of workers in Wal-Mart stores use food stamps.

You better come up with statistics and links from unbiased sources to back this up or you should be banned for spreading lies.

Apocalypse

11-15-2012, 02:58 PM

Would you have preferred that the ER turn you away? If you seriously think that you mind your own business and that universal healthcare infringes on your liberty, then support the right of the hospital to demand payment or insurance before allowing the amberlamps to drop you off.

Do you really want a hospital to turn your family member away? Would not not kick and scream about all the taxes you have paid and never drawn a nickel of welfare?

Seriously, the time has come. The way we have been doing this is wrong. It's always been wrong.

Nova, many more are now then before, and its getting worse because of this law.

Fact is Medicare is going broke, Obamacare takes 700 billion out of it to fund Obamacare, while at the same time puts 30+ million more people into that program.

If you decrease the funds, increase the people, that will force you to decrease the payments made for their treatments. Hospitals will in turn have no choice but refuse treatment due to lack of payment. Their cost will not be covered.

Apocalypse

11-15-2012, 03:03 PM

There is nothing to learn there. The "mini-plan" is not comprehensive health insurance and doesn't facilitate preventative care. It pays for a broken wrist, maybe.

The goal here is not "some coverage". If that were the case, then Denny's could simply have an in house policy of paying up to $1000 for each employee and call themselves 100% insured. It's not acceptable.

Did you, or did you not state,

so clearly 35 of the employees in a given store do not have health insurance.

Now your saying there is nothing to learn here, that some thing is not better then the now nothing they all will be forced to have. That they now are better off with nothing at all?

Plus learn math.

patriot45

11-15-2012, 03:04 PM

Nova, many more are now then before, and its getting worse because of this law.

Fact is Medicare is going broke, Obamacare takes 700 billion out of it to fund Obamacare, while at the same time puts 30+ million more people into that program.

If you decrease the funds, increase the people, that will force you to decrease the payments made for their treatments. Hospitals will in turn have no choice but refuse treatment due to lack of payment. Their cost will not be covered.

Logic can't be argued wit a libs emotions, but what about the children!:cool:

Novaheart

11-15-2012, 03:07 PM

Nova, many more are now then before, and its getting worse because of this law.

Fact is Medicare is going broke, Obamacare takes 700 billion out of it to fund Obamacare, while at the same time puts 30+ million more people into that program.

If you decrease the funds, increase the people, that will force you to decrease the payments made for their treatments. Hospitals will in turn have no choice but refuse treatment due to lack of payment. Their cost will not be covered.

$700 billion from Medicare?

Rockntractor

11-15-2012, 03:10 PM

$700 billion from Medicare?
Provide link.

Novaheart

11-15-2012, 03:16 PM

Did you, or did you not state,

Now your saying there is nothing to learn here, that some thing is not better then the now nothing they all will be forced to have. That they now are better off with nothing at all?

Plus learn math.

Metz said that it would cost him $5000 per year per employee, or $175,000 per year per store. $175,000 divided by $5000 is 35.

Yes, I said that 35 employees per store didn't have comprehensive health insurance, ie the kind that would cost Metz an additional $5000 per year per employee in his statement. See the math. No, the mini-plan doesn't count as comprehensive health insurance.

Apocalypse

11-15-2012, 03:25 PM

Logic can't be argued wit a libs emotions, but what about the children!:cool:

Libs don't care about the children.

They celebrate Abortion.

They dance with single parenthood.

They encourage failing schools.

They reward incompetent teachers.

And lastly they sing the praises of programs that spend their future before they can enjoy it.

If they cared about the children;

They would be sicked about murdering our children.
http://www.epm.org/static/uploads/images/partial_birth_diagram.jpg

They would fight for the sanctity of the family.
72% Of Black Kids Raised In Single Parent Household (http://newsone.com/1195075/children-single-parents-u-s-american/)
They would force failing schools to reform.
Public High Schools Are Not Doing Their Jobs - Economic ... (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/28/public-high-schools-are-not-doing-their-jobs)
They would fire incompetent teachers.
Teacher evaluators unable, unwilling to identify poor teachers (http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/state-teacher-evaluators-unable-unwilling-identify-poor-teachers)

And lastly they wouldn't pass our debt onto our children to repay in the future.

16.3 Trillion dollars.

Novaheart

11-15-2012, 03:27 PM

You better come up with statistics and links from unbiased sources to back this up or you should be banned for spreading lies.

You're not likely to consider any source other than the GOP website to be unbiased, and that was indeed from a blog. However, this link will take you to a state by state report with official sources.

Florida
In March 2005 the St. Petersburg Times published a summary of data it obtained from the Department of Children and Families on the employers in the state with the most workers who were enrolled in Medicaid or KidCare Insurance (Florida's version of SCHIP). Leading the Medicaid list was Wal-Mart with 12,300 employees or their dependents enrolled in the program. Wal-Mart also accounted for 1,375 employee children enrolled in Kidcare (second only to Miami-Dade County with 1,518). The other employers with the most Medicaid enrollees were McDonald's (8,100), Publix (7,900), Wendy's (4,100), Winn-Dixie (4,000) and Burger King (3,900). Publix ranked third on the KidCare list with 1,250 and Winn-Dixie ranked fifth (after Broward County Schools) with 379.

The St. Petersburg Times story also took note of the fact that several of the companies with the most employees and dependents enrolled in public health insurance programs were also recipients of substantial amounts of economic development incentives such as tax abatements.

The St. Petersburg Times numbers were significantly higher than comparable data cited in a December 2004 published by the Tallahassee Democrat. That story, also based on data from the Department of Children and Families, reported that the company with the most employees participating in Medicaid was McDonald's, with 1,792 claims filed. The other top private-sector employers on its list were Publix (1,579), Winn-Dixie (1,108), Burger King (830) and Wal-Mart (756). The article noted that the data supplied by the state referred to the number of claims rather than the number of beneficiaries, which it said was likely to be much higher. This might explain the discrepancy.

Sources: Sydney P. Freedberg and Connie Humburg, "Lured Employers Now Tax Medicaid," St. Petersburg Times, March 25, 2005 plus a spreadsheet with additional data provided by the authors to Good Jobs First. Also: Rocky Scott, "50,000 Workers Qualify for Medicaid: Some Say Companies Taking Advantage," Tallahassee Democrat, December 19, 2004, p.1 According to a private communication with the author, the headline was incorrect and should have referred to 50,000 employers.

Novaheart

11-15-2012, 03:28 PM

Libs don't care about the children.

They celebrate Abortion.

They dance with single parenthood.

They encourage failing schools.

They reward incompetent teachers.

And lastly they sing the praises of programs that spend their future before they can enjoy it.

If they cared about the children;

They would be sicked about murdering our children.
http://www.epm.org/static/uploads/images/partial_birth_diagram.jpg

They would fight for the sanctity of the family.
72% Of Black Kids Raised In Single Parent Household (http://newsone.com/1195075/children-single-parents-u-s-american/)
They would force failing schools to reform.
Public High Schools Are Not Doing Their Jobs - Economic ... (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/28/public-high-schools-are-not-doing-their-jobs)
They would fire incompetent teachers.
Teacher evaluators unable, unwilling to identify poor teachers (http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/state-teacher-evaluators-unable-unwilling-identify-poor-teachers)

And lastly they wouldn't pass our debt onto our children to repay in the future.

16.3 Trillion dollars.

Your version of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing.

Adam Wood

11-15-2012, 03:32 PM

It's becoming increasingly clear what the health care debate is about: petty people who don't give a shit if other people have health care as long as they have theirs. Bullshit. It's always been clear that the majority of people don't want the federal government involving itself in their medical decisions.

Why is it somehow a great thing if the federal government gets its grubby mitts on a personal, private decision like health care, so long as that is not something that prevents an abortion, but it's a terrible thing if the very same federal government sticks its nose into who you do the nasty with in your bedroom? What an astounding double standard, even for a Leftist.

Either you want the federal government out of your business or you don't. Can't have it both ways.

Apocalypse

11-15-2012, 03:39 PM

$700 billion from Medicare?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Ha7RNpn24

Odysseus

11-15-2012, 03:39 PM

It's becoming increasingly clear what the health care debate is about: petty people who don't give a shit if other people have health care as long as they have theirs.

No, it's about petty people who don't care if they destroy the system as long as they can stick their noses into other peoples' wallets. 250 million Americans have coverage, and Obamacare doesn't cover most of the remainder. You piously claim to care about people without coverage, but your solution is going to destroy the coverage that the rest of us have, and itt will not even achieve your goal of universal coverage. You're the ones who cannot see beyond your petty agenda of envy.

Novaheart

11-15-2012, 03:40 PM

Bullshit. It's always been clear that the majority of people don't want the federal government involving itself in their medical decisions.

Why is it somehow a great thing if the federal government gets its grubby mitts on a personal, private decision like health care, so long as that is not something that prevents an abortion, but it's a terrible thing if the very same federal government sticks its nose into who you do the nasty with in your bedroom? What an astounding double standard, even for a Leftist.

Either you want the federal government out of your business or you don't. Can't have it both ways.

Well gee, Adam. Let's just throw some crap against the wall and see if it sticks:

Why would you want the government to stay out of your bedroom, and then call the police when you see a burglar crawl through your neighbor's bedroom window? You can't have it both ways.

Bullshit.

Medicare pays for some things and not others, as does private insurance. The difference is that through elected officials we can tall Medicare what to pay for. By your definition, both ration and both interfere with your medical decisions. Of course, in both cases, if you have the cash to pay for it, you can make medical decisions in conflict with your insurance company or Medicare.

As I understand it, you are paying for a catastrophic plan right now. Soon enough, if you are lucky, you will be so old that your insurance company will send you a little packet saying, "It's been nice, enjoy Medicare, and by the way would you like to buy a gap coverage package?" Wouldn't it really have made more sense for you and the nation if you had been paying your premiums into Medicare all along?

No, it's about petty people who don't care if they destroy the system as long as they can stick their noses into other peoples' wallets. 250 million Americans have coverage, and Obamacare doesn't cover most of the remainder. You piously claim to care about people without coverage, but your solution is going to destroy the coverage that the rest of us have, and itt will not even achieve your goal of universal coverage. You're the ones who cannot see beyond your petty agenda of envy.

ACA is an interim solution. NSP is the objective. How do you expect it to affect you?

Rockntractor

11-15-2012, 04:24 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Ha7RNpn24

Good video, has Nova addressed this yet?

FlaGator

11-15-2012, 05:17 PM

There is nothing to learn there. The "mini-plan" is not comprehensive health insurance and doesn't facilitate preventative care. It pays for a broken wrist, maybe.

The goal here is not "some coverage". If that were the case, then Denny's could simply have an in house policy of paying up to $1000 for each employee and call themselves 100% insured. It's not acceptable.

I am planning on opening a barber shop and do some blood letting to treat the uninsured... being the humanitarian that I am.

Odysseus

11-15-2012, 05:32 PM

Well gee, Adam. Let's just throw some crap against the wall and see if it sticks:

Why would you want the government to stay out of your bedroom, and then call the police when you see a burglar crawl through your neighbor's bedroom window? You can't have it both ways.

Bullshit.

Medicare pays for some things and not others, as does private insurance. The difference is that through elected officials we can tall Medicare what to pay for. By your definition, both ration and both interfere with your medical decisions. Of course, in both cases, if you have the cash to pay for it, you can make medical decisions in conflict with your insurance company or Medicare.

As I understand it, you are paying for a catastrophic plan right now. Soon enough, if you are lucky, you will be so old that your insurance company will send you a little packet saying, "It's been nice, enjoy Medicare, and by the way would you like to buy a gap coverage package?" Wouldn't it really have made more sense for you and the nation if you had been paying your premiums into Medicare all along?

No. Medicare is an example of how not to run a national insurance plan, because it isn't insurance, it's simply welfare, and a very stingy program, at least from the point of view of the providers. The fees paid to doctors and other providers are so low now that most doctors are not accepting new Medicare patients, and many are leaving the program entirely. The only way to ensure that doctors stay in the program is through coercion, which means that rather than just leaving the system, doctors who want to practice medicine for patients instead of for bureaucrats will end up leaving the nation. This is what happened to Britain after the NHS came about, and it's happening again.

NHS facing 'massive loss' of doctors overseas
The NHS faces “a massive potential loss” of junior doctors overseas due to plummeting morale caused by problems with training and the ongoing dispute over pensions, the British Medical Association has warned.

Dr Ben Molyneux, incoming chairman of the union’s junior doctors’ committee, said a “perfect storm” was eroding the quality of medical training which, with other problems, was resulting in a “brain drain” to countries like Australia, New Zealand and the US.

He said: “Huge numbers are going abroad after their first two years of foundation training.

“Significant numbers go every year and these numbers are increasing.

“Lots do come back but some don’t, and the risk here is there’s a brain drain to elsewhere, if we can’t retain our own workforce.”

The economic climate and the Government’s controversial health reforms had combined to create “a perfect storm for the potential erosion of high quality medical training”, he said.

One example of problems was trainees in Kent, Surrey and Sussex being denied the chance to do the placements they wanted due to short staffing, he said.

Education and training had been “bolted on” to the Health and Social Care Act, he claimed, “and we are trying to make things fit”.

More and more “home grown” medical graduates were also failing to secure NHS jobs, he said, due to a long-term increase in medical students and a rise in foreign applicants.

He continued: “A recent BMA survey of junior doctors’ career intentions showed that half of those questioned said they were more likely to leave the NHS to work overseas after training compared to two years ago.

“This would represent a massive potential loss to the NHS.

“Continued pay freezes and the raid on doctors’ pensions will further demoralise a profession who face an intense and lengthy training programme.”

To train a medical student for five or six years, to the point they are ready for their first day’s work in hospital, costs the state about £250,000.

Dr Molyneux, a GP trainee, said morale was the lowest he had personally seen it.

“I love my job, but it’s very difficult when confronted day in, day out with another problem," he said

ACA is an interim solution. NSP is the objective. How do you expect it to affect you?

In other words, ACA is meant to break the system so that people will clamor to scrap it in favor of NSP. We get it. It's dishonest and despicable, but it's what we've come to expect from the left. And your other question, how I expect it to affect me, assumes that if it doesn't affect me because I'm on TriCare, then I have no right to an opinion. Unfortunately for both of us, it does affect me, and will affect my family as well.

I expect it to affect me by reducing the number of physicians available for my needs, and those of my family. TriCare has tremendous difficulty in attracting doctors who will accept its lower fees, so we have very few providers available. This means longer waiting times to see primary care providers and specialists, and it also means that the system has to make do with Physician's Assistants doing many of the jobs that MDs did. This means that the risk of misdiagnosis or other error is increased for everybody in the system. So, I can expect longer waits for poorer service, and eventually, when I retire, the private sector insurance will either be out of my price range, as costs are driven up by poor policy, or gone completely, in the ultimate act of stupidity, the enactment of NSP.

Novaheart

11-15-2012, 08:00 PM

I expect it to affect me by reducing the number of physicians available for my needs, and those of my family. TriCare has tremendous difficulty in attracting doctors who will accept its lower fees, so we have very few providers available. This means longer waiting times to see primary care providers and specialists, and it also means that the system has to make do with Physician's Assistants doing many of the jobs that MDs did. This means that the risk of misdiagnosis or other error is increased for everybody in the system. So, I can expect longer waits for poorer service, and eventually, when I retire, the private sector insurance will either be out of my price range, as costs are driven up by poor policy, or gone completely, in the ultimate act of stupidity, the enactment of NSP.

Physicians Assistants are in greater use across the board, as they should be. Most of what a doctor does can be done by a PA.

If we need more doctors, then we need to dedicate more resources to turning out more doctors.

Rockntractor

11-15-2012, 08:46 PM

ACA is an interim solution. NSP is the objective. How do you expect it to affect you?

we could just go with some of these.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/imagesqtbnANd9GcRZqT8gf6iGq-8utQT6G.jpg

Adam Wood

11-15-2012, 09:59 PM

Well gee, Adam. Let's just throw some crap against the wall and see if it sticks:

Why would you want the government to stay out of your bedroom, and then call the police when you see a burglar crawl through your neighbor's bedroom window? You can't have it both ways.I don't call the FBI if I see a prowler breaking into my neighbor's house. I call the local PD and tell them to come clean up the mess after I blow the guy away.

Newsflash: the federal government is different from the state government, and that's different from the county and/or city government.

Bullshit. Yeah, the strawman you just threw up pretty much is bullshit.

Medicare pays for some things and not others, as does private insurance. The difference is that through elected officials we can tall Medicare what to pay for. By your definition, both ration and both interfere with your medical decisions. Of course, in both cases, if you have the cash to pay for it, you can make medical decisions in conflict with your insurance company or Medicare. I have a choice as to what is and is not covered with private coverage. Not so with federal healthcare.

Regardless, Medicare isn't at issue here. Obamacare is.

As I understand it, you are paying for a catastrophic plan right now. Soon enough, if you are lucky, you will be so old that your insurance company will send you a little packet saying, "It's been nice, enjoy Medicare, and by the way would you like to buy a gap coverage package?" Wouldn't it really have made more sense for you and the nation if you had been paying your premiums into Medicare all along?Who in the hell said anything about not paying their Medicare "premiums?" Where on earth did you come up with that?

Apocalypse

11-15-2012, 11:57 PM

Who in the hell said anything about not paying their Medicare "premiums?" Where on earth did you come up with that?

What nova was saying, instead of paying your insurance company, wouldn't every one just enjoy paying your government the money instead? Then allow them the power to decide what will and will not be covered with no options.

Novaheart

11-16-2012, 02:38 AM

No, it's about petty people who don't care if they destroy the system as long as they can stick their noses into other peoples' wallets. 250 million Americans have coverage, and Obamacare doesn't cover most of the remainder. You piously claim to care about people without coverage, but your solution is going to destroy the coverage that the rest of us have, and itt will not even achieve your goal of universal coverage. You're the ones who cannot see beyond your petty agenda of envy.

It keeps coming back to your apparent fear that if everyone has healthcare that you will get less health care. Rather like those who oppose across the board pay increases for civilian labor but have no problem with across the board increases for themselves.

Odysseus

11-16-2012, 12:17 PM

Physicians Assistants are in greater use across the board, as they should be. Most of what a doctor does can be done by a PA.

Thanks for that update, Doctor Nova. Glad that an expert weighed in. Now, just what exactly is your expertise in medicine that you can make that statement?

If we need more doctors, then we need to dedicate more resources to turning out more doctors.

Oh, so that's all it takes? Wow, but you really don't understand economics, do you? We don't "dedicate resources" in order to turn out doctors. People go to medical school because they have the aptitude and desire to become doctors. You cannot increase people's aptitudes, and you cannot force them to go through the years of study, internship and residency required. They have to want to do it. The only way that you can create more doctors is to lower the requirements so that more people qualify for the standards. You can dedicate the entire federal budget to expanding medical schools, but unless you are prepared to drop standards, then you can mandate and throw money at the problem until you bankrupt the nation, but you will not produce a single doctor. If, OTOH, you simply mandate a greater quantity of medical school graduates, you will end up with a corresponding decline in the quality of those graduates, and the services that they provide.

It keeps coming back to your apparent fear that if everyone has healthcare that you will get less health care. Rather like those who oppose across the board pay increases for civilian labor but have no problem with across the board increases for themselves.

First, it's not my "apparent fear" that if everyone has healthcare I will get less, it's my very obvious fear that eliminating pricing as a mechanism for regulating supply and demand will result in less available services and poorer quality, and that is based on the experience of every other country in the world that has done it. It is also based on my concerns that disinterested bureaucrats are not the best people making decisions about what I choose to spend on my healthcare, and my family's. As for the second part of your statement, I have no problem with pay increases for civilian labor if the market will bear it, but I do have a problem with government mandates on labor, which are essentially a tax levied on businesses to subsidize wages, but because those taxes don't go through Washington, we don't see them that way. If the federal government has the authority to dictate wages and prices, then what liberty do we have?

Once again, you misrepresent my argument, provide a counter argument that is completely irrelevant and which is also a misrepresentation. Care to address what I actually said?

Novaheart

11-16-2012, 12:37 PM

Oh, so that's all it takes? Wow, but you really don't understand economics, do you? We don't "dedicate resources" in order to turn out doctors. People go to medical school because they have the aptitude and desire to become doctors. You cannot increase people's aptitudes, and you cannot force them to go through the years of study, internship and residency required. They have to want to do it. The only way that you can create more doctors is to lower the requirements so that more people qualify for the standards.

By Letitia Stein, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Thursday, November 15, 2012

Amid growing concerns about a looming shortage of doctors, the HCA hospital chain plans to begin training hundreds of additional physicians in the Tampa Bay area and across Florida.

Beginning in July 2014, the nation's largest for-profit hospital chain plans a major expansion of its medical residency programs statewide, said Peter Marmerstein, HCA west Florida division president, in an interview on Wednesday.

By Letitia Stein, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Thursday, November 15, 2012

Amid growing concerns about a looming shortage of doctors, the HCA hospital chain plans to begin training hundreds of additional physicians in the Tampa Bay area and across Florida.

Beginning in July 2014, the nation's largest for-profit hospital chain plans a major expansion of its medical residency programs statewide, said Peter Marmerstein, HCA west Florida division president, in an interview on Wednesday.

You remind me of the guy who jumped out of a window, and all the way down kept repeating "so far, so good." Mandating additional slots is easy. I said that before. But filling those slots is the hard part, and keeping those positions filled over the lifetime of the program is even harder.
You ignored this when I posted it before, but once again, I draw your attention to what will happen in the future, as demonstrated by Britain's NHS:

NHS facing 'massive loss' of doctors overseas
The NHS faces “a massive potential loss” of junior doctors overseas due to plummeting morale caused by problems with training and the ongoing dispute over pensions, the British Medical Association has warned.

Dr Ben Molyneux, incoming chairman of the union’s junior doctors’ committee, said a “perfect storm” was eroding the quality of medical training which, with other problems, was resulting in a “brain drain” to countries like Australia, New Zealand and the US.

He said: “Huge numbers are going abroad after their first two years of foundation training.

“Significant numbers go every year and these numbers are increasing.

“Lots do come back but some don’t, and the risk here is there’s a brain drain to elsewhere, if we can’t retain our own workforce.”

The economic climate and the Government’s controversial health reforms had combined to create “a perfect storm for the potential erosion of high quality medical training”, he said.

One example of problems was trainees in Kent, Surrey and Sussex being denied the chance to do the placements they wanted due to short staffing, he said.

Education and training had been “bolted on” to the Health and Social Care Act, he claimed, “and we are trying to make things fit”.

More and more “home grown” medical graduates were also failing to secure NHS jobs, he said, due to a long-term increase in medical students and a rise in foreign applicants.

He continued: “A recent BMA survey of junior doctors’ career intentions showed that half of those questioned said they were more likely to leave the NHS to work overseas after training compared to two years ago.

“This would represent a massive potential loss to the NHS.

“Continued pay freezes and the raid on doctors’ pensions will further demoralise a profession who face an intense and lengthy training programme.”

To train a medical student for five or six years, to the point they are ready for their first day’s work in hospital, costs the state about £250,000.

Dr Molyneux, a GP trainee, said morale was the lowest he had personally seen it.

“I love my job, but it’s very difficult when confronted day in, day out with another problem," he said

And, as I said before, expansion of the programs doesn't mean that the quality will be maintained. In order to fill those slots, you will end up taking students who wouldn't have made the cut previously. Diminishing standards will lead to inferior providers in the long run. And, as the mandates on doctors increase the pay decreases, you'll have to lower those standards even more as doctors leave the system.

Novaheart

11-16-2012, 01:45 PM

You remind me of the guy who jumped out of a window, and all the way down kept repeating "so far, so good." Mandating additional slots is easy. I said that before. But filling those slots is the hard part, and keeping those positions filled over the lifetime of the program is even harder.
You ignored this when I posted it before, but once again, I draw your attention to what will happen in the future, as demonstrated by Britain's NHS:

NHS facing 'massive loss' of doctors overseas
The NHS faces “a massive potential loss” of junior doctors overseas due to plummeting morale caused by problems with training and the ongoing dispute over pensions, the British Medical Association has warned.

Dr Ben Molyneux, incoming chairman of the union’s junior doctors’ committee, said a “perfect storm” was eroding the quality of medical training which, with other problems, was resulting in a “brain drain” to countries like Australia, New Zealand and the US.

He said: “Huge numbers are going abroad after their first two years of foundation training.

“Significant numbers go every year and these numbers are increasing.

“Lots do come back but some don’t, and the risk here is there’s a brain drain to elsewhere, if we can’t retain our own workforce.”

The economic climate and the Government’s controversial health reforms had combined to create “a perfect storm for the potential erosion of high quality medical training”, he said.

One example of problems was trainees in Kent, Surrey and Sussex being denied the chance to do the placements they wanted due to short staffing, he said.

Education and training had been “bolted on” to the Health and Social Care Act, he claimed, “and we are trying to make things fit”.

More and more “home grown” medical graduates were also failing to secure NHS jobs, he said, due to a long-term increase in medical students and a rise in foreign applicants.

He continued: “A recent BMA survey of junior doctors’ career intentions showed that half of those questioned said they were more likely to leave the NHS to work overseas after training compared to two years ago.

“This would represent a massive potential loss to the NHS.

“Continued pay freezes and the raid on doctors’ pensions will further demoralise a profession who face an intense and lengthy training programme.”

To train a medical student for five or six years, to the point they are ready for their first day’s work in hospital, costs the state about £250,000.

Dr Molyneux, a GP trainee, said morale was the lowest he had personally seen it.

“I love my job, but it’s very difficult when confronted day in, day out with another problem," he said

And, as I said before, expansion of the programs doesn't mean that the quality will be maintained. In order to fill those slots, you will end up taking students who wouldn't have made the cut previously. Diminishing standards will lead to inferior providers in the long run. And, as the mandates on doctors increase the pay decreases, you'll have to lower those standards even more as doctors leave the system.

And you are engaging in confirmation bias. As you know, at present "not making the cut" for a medical school in the US doesn't mean that you are a dullard. Haven't we seen case after case of highly qualified people being turned away from US medical schools because they don't conform to a political or capricious selection process? Some of these people go on to schools elsewhere, come back and take the tests and become doctors in the US. Others fall out.

My sister's boyfriend in college, a East Indian American citizen, couldn't get into medical school in the US. He went to India, completed school there and is now a doctor in Boston. Is he necessarily a worse doctor than a "diversity candidate" at Georgetown or Howard University? Is he less of a doctor than one who got in because he had identical grades but some social aspect or status which put him in the acceptance category?

Honestly, you remind of the DU crowd sometimes. You are so wrapped up in doctrine that if reality is in conflict with your philosophy, you simply start chanting the mantras of ersatz capitalism theory as you understand it (but don't practice it).

Odysseus

11-16-2012, 04:30 PM

And you are engaging in confirmation bias. As you know, at present "not making the cut" for a medical school in the US doesn't mean that you are a dullard. Haven't we seen case after case of highly qualified people being turned away from US medical schools because they don't conform to a political or capricious selection process? Some of these people go on to schools elsewhere, come back and take the tests and become doctors in the US. Others fall out.

My sister's boyfriend in college, a East Indian American citizen, couldn't get into medical school in the US. He went to India, completed school there and is now a doctor in Boston. Is he necessarily a worse doctor than a "diversity candidate" at Georgetown or Howard University? Is he less of a doctor than one who got in because he had identical grades but some social aspect or status which put him in the acceptance category?

So, what you are saying is that because liberals have corrupted the college entrance process, we should also allow them to apply their skills to the health care industry? How exactly does that work?

You are comparing apples to oranges. The inclusion of irrelevant criteria to college admissions has produced inferior graduates (as has been demonstrated repeatedly), but this doesn't mean that expanding the base to include more admissions is going to improve the quality of graduates. If you increase the number of persons going into colleges by expanding the number of seats, you are lowering the entrance requirements. We've seen this in the military during the Vietnam era, when McNamara lowered the requirements for enlistment, to include lower ASVAB scores, and the commissioning programs were directed to produce more officers, regardless of how. The end result was a the inclusion of Soldiers and officers whose presence was, at best, detrimental to the functions of the institution (that is to say, they were dumber than a bag of hammers), with corresponding failures of leadership and mission. One of the first things that the DOD did in the 80's was raise the admissions standards. As a result, we have the most educated, capable and intelligent military that any nation has ever fielded.

Honestly, you remind of the DU crowd sometimes. You are so wrapped up in doctrine that if reality is in conflict with your philosophy, you simply start chanting the mantras of ersatz capitalism theory as you understand it (but don't practice it).

Doctrine? I provided you with a concrete example of the current brain drain in Britain, show you actual examples of issues within TriCare that will be exacerbated by expansion of government control, and you ignore those while making pie in the sky claims as to the virtues of Single Payer systems which have never been realized in any of them. If anyone is wrapped up in doctrine, it's you. And, I do practice the theory that I preach, or more importantly, I see it practiced on me. TriCare is Single Payer in microcosm, and it has serious problems which you refuse to discuss. We cannot get doctors to join the program. We have shortages of practictioners throughout the system. Waiting times are longer than in private systems. The DOD is notoriously stingy with new treatments and takes far longer to offer them than the private sector. This is the way that these programs work, and your delusional belief in Single Payer persists despite the evidence offered by those of us who have experienced it.

m00

11-16-2012, 04:46 PM

Honestly, you remind of the DU crowd sometimes. You are so wrapped up in doctrine that if reality is in conflict with your philosophy, you simply start chanting the mantras of ersatz capitalism theory as you understand it (but don't practice it).

This country is such a mess. Sometimes when I read news stories coming out of the ME, I wonder if 40-50 years of being educated (aka "indoctrinated") under totalitarian regimes have warped people more than following a crazy interpretation of the Koran. Over there, sometimes the dissenters are more nuts than the the State. "Free us from the brutal tyranny of <insert ME dictator>! He tortures his citizens! He commits genocide! He denies us our civil rights! He steals hundreds of millions from his people! He prevents us from molesting our daughters and planning terrorist attacks! He helps those dirty Jews in their quest for one-world government!" ... and you're like... wait, what?!

Anyway, lots of indoctrination going on in the US too. You just can't see it when you live it.